Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41960722›Full record

SynthesisOrthopaedic surgery2026

How Can Technology Improve Acetabular and Pelvic Fractures Management in the Operating Room? A Systematic Review.

Marie Le Baron, Martine Pithioux, Stéphane Candoni, Xavier Flecher

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Orthopaedic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Marie Le BaronDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Institute of Movement and Locomotion, Marseille, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8833-7454
Martine PithiouxAix Marseille University, CNRS, Marseille, France.
Stéphane CandoniAix Marseille University, CNRS, Marseille, France.
Xavier FlecherDepartment of Orthopedics and Traumatology, Institute of Movement and Locomotion, Marseille, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a proliferation of literature describing new technologies increasingly integrated into the surgical management of pelvic fractures. However, the available data are heterogeneous, scattered, and sometimes limited to small series or single-center studies. This review aims to present new technologies in the field of pelvic and acetabular fractures and explore their potential benefits for surgeons and patients. The goal is to describe current concepts, advantages, and limitations and to open a discussion about future use and development. The search was conducted through Medline, Central and Embase databases from inception to January 2025 following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol. A total of 841 records were reviewed and 115 studies were included according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Technologies such as robotics, navigation, patient-specific management, and 3D printing are being developed for the management of pelvic injuries. These technologies demonstrate greater surgical accuracy without increasing complications. In pelvic and acetabular fractures surgery, new technologies are very attractive and are a promising help for management of these complex injuries and need to be improved before being included in routine care.

Indexed as

AcetabulumFracture Fixation, InternalFractures, BonePelvic BonesHumansPrinting, Three-DimensionalSurgery, Computer-Assisted3D printingacetabular fracturenavigationpatient specificpelvic fracturerobot

Identifiers

PMID41960722
PMCPMC13139054

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.